Delian League to empire and war (1 Viewer)

[Costa87]

hi i have an essay question which is due next week it is:

The Athenians may not have sought an empire but could not let it go. How accurate is this statement and to what extent is Athenian imperialism a cause of the war

i was wondering if anyone can help or give me a few ideas

Thanks

 

[classics_chic]

The Athenians may not have sought an empire but could not let it go. How accurate is this statement and to what extent is Athenian imperialism a cause of the war

You have a couple of issues to deal with:

The Athenians may not have sought an empire

I'm not sure that's true. The sinking of the irons is a very powerful religious symbol (representing the permanance of the bond). Why would they have used that powerful symbol for the removal of the Persians, which happened so quickly? (I know, the joys of hindsight, but it's still a point that can be made)

The 'treasurers of the Greeks' were all Athenian from the start (Athens had control of the money and ships, even though they were held in Delos), and Athens could always use its position as hegemon, as a powerful city, and as the symbolic ancestor of the Ionians to bully other cities into voting their way.

The Athenians could not let go of their empire

This is certainly true. After the inevitable collapse of the Hellenic League (the poleis- plural of polis- were independant institutions and had almost always been fighting: it was the way things were done), relationships were tough between Athens (just newly a powerful city) and Sparta (which had been a powerful city from well within the Archaic Age), especially since at the turn of the 6th century Sparta tried to take over Athens (the Athenian revolution, you don't need to know about that- but that's the reason why the Athenians gave earth and water to the Persians in the first place, and one of the reasons for the Persian Wars).

The money was also very important for the Athenians in rebuilding their city (after the Persians burnt it to the ground), and for the upkeep of sailors (who were paid, unlike hoplites, who fought because of the honour attributed to it. Although wealthy Athenian citizens also kept up the triremes, the funding from the League/ Empire was necessary).

The Spartans were growing increasingly jealous of the Athenians, especially when Argos (voluntarily) and Megara (by force- which compromised the Corinthians- a reason why the Spartans became more involved) became a part of the Empire. The safety of Athens depended on this power (but ultimately they lost the Pel. war because of this), which is one reason why they took over Aegina.

To what extent was Athenian imperialism a cause of the war?

If you had told me which war that may have helped, but I'm assuming Peloponnesian. I haven't studied the Peloponnesian War, but take what I've said so far and combine it with what you know. The source I'd recommend would be Thucydides (and Bury and Meiggs for a modern source, or The Ancient Greeks by Fine et. al.) Hope I've been helpful!

Good luck!

 

[justinreedy]

The Athenians may not have sought an empire

I believe this is true. Thucydides believes the initial capture of Eion, Scyrius, Carystus and Naxos were stepping stones to becoming an empire.

"it was the actual course of events which first complled us to increase power to its present extent; fear of Persia was our chief motivator"

This quote clearly outlines the fact that they did not sought an empire - it merely 'came about'.

 

[Magister]

Re Athenian Imperialism

Hi all!!

I hope this list of points and references helps with this particular question'
Contact me if I can help you further.

Cheers,

Magister

 

[Magister]

Athenian Imperialism.

OOOP!!! Some very sloppy work above!! Forgot to include the Thuc. references and some bad spellos. My apologies. Will amend and resubmit tomorrow.

Magister

 

[Cab31]

The Athenians originally did not seek an empire, but more or less had it thrust upon them. There was a need for a leader in Greece (particuarly areas clear of the Peloponnese which already had a leader in the form of Sparta). However, the success of Athens in the Persian wars, lead some of the larger island to approach Athens, and hence the Delian league was born. What supports the claim that Athens did not seek an empire is reference to 'athens and her allies' in official documents. Later on in the leaugues existance, Christian Meier notes that this wa changed to Athens and those who she rules over. This indicates that although the Athenians did not seek an empire, they certainly transformed themselves into one, abusing their power as leaders of the Delian League. Another source quoted (from memory) that Athens became an empire out of necessity, i.e. If they werent to rule, they would have been ruled by another city state, or worse, Persia.
Hope that helps

 

[Magister]

Re Athenian Empire

Much of the epigraphic evidence strongly supports the centralised organisation and increasingly aggressive control over the DL allies. Kagan, Meiggs, De Ste Croix, Hornblower and French in particular discuss this aspect of Athenian imperialism. The 3 key speeces by Pericles in Thuc. clearly demonstrate the encroaching of Athenian political, military/naval and economic control over the allies. Ultimately, Pericles concedes that Athens is now a tyrannical power and that it would be strategic suicide to lessen control or let go of the empire completely. I have covered this in the attachments in my post above, as well as Athens' possible motivations.

It seems to me that many students do not study the actions of the Athenians against their allies during the Peloponnesian War. The examples of Mytilene (420) which revolted, and Melos (416) which was neutral, were naked exercises of power and are covered at length by Thuc. in the Dialogues which take their names. Melos, in particular, was a shameful episode which outraged the Greek world and rebounded savagely on Athens in the later phases of the war. All of this is instructional in any study of imperialism and highlights the excesses to which such powers resorted in what in MH is called realpolitik.

On the other side of the coin, it is important to examine what benefits Athens' control brought to the empire. Consider stability, protection from other powers (Persia, Sparta and the Peloponnesian League...), unity of the Ionian states et al. However, given the strong sense of autonomy which was important in the Greek political ethos, it did not sit comfortably for states to surrender their independence to a stronger power. The truth was that Athens became so powerful that it was both futile and foolish to shake loose as the attempts to secede demonstrated.

This topic is wide-ranging and complex and there are many lines of inquiry and argument that can be investigated. Read widely, especially later secondary sources. De Romilly (in translation) is an excellent older work which is a strong analysis of Athenian imperialism. And, of course, Thuc and Plutarch are essential.

I hope this is useful to some of you. Cheers!

Magister